The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DhoomBros[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable group, could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Most search results I found were self-published and therefore not reliable. Also, article creator has a conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would have speedied this if it hadn't been afded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have a attracted a teensy weensy bit of notice, but short of what would be needed to establish notability. Good luck on their career, but now is too soon for a wikipedia article on them. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.